Joint GCR-GW and GCR, Denham to Marylebone.

[corfield]

Can anyone explain, or point me to a source/map showing the original track layout of what is today the Chiltern Main Line towards the London end, i.e. was it quad-tracked, and where ?

Trying to track the route today I make the following observations (from regularly using the line and viewing Google earth) [apologies for length of this, it wasn’t supposed to go on and on...]

1) From Denham London bound it would appear that it was always twin track, as dictated by bridge and embankment widths.

2) At West Ruislip it was quadtracked, of which 3 remain, and the trackbed for the 4th having been built over by the southern platform, with the trackbed then visible as empty space running towards Marylebone and an unused bridge span over what is now the Piccadilly/Metropolitan lines to Uxbridge.

3) I think, that either next to or using part of, the Central Line Ruislip depot, the quadtracking continued, at least until the Bridge over West End Road. But it’s hard to tell if this would have been wide enough.

4) It looks like the bridge on the London side of South Ruislip could have been wider, and 4 tracks could have continued to run through here.

5) After this we have the waste transfer area, no shortage of land, easy to have had quad tracks running through this area, but at the Eastern end of it, there are two single track width bridges taking the line over a road, and the embankment continuing on looks only twin track width.

6) Similarly the bridge over the A312 is only twin width.

7) From Northolt Park, there are newish buildings alongside the line, but it looks like there is spare space in other parts, and a couple of overbridges with spans over empty space – thus looking like this section had more tracks.

8) There is then the tunnel under the Piccadilly line, the portal of which is only big enough for twin track.

9) There is ample space running up to South Harrow station, and that stations footbridge clearly spans a quad track, coming down on the non lines side of the existing platforms (built over the outer two lines ?). The next bridge, under Greenford Rd is also massively wider with unused spans, as is the bridge beyond.

10) At Sudbury & Harrow, the track corridor is very wide, and possibly the existing station has been built over the original middle pair of lines ?

11) The embankment after this, and a couple of over bridges roads and the girder one over the WCML look narrow, only ever twin track ?

12) The line after this significantly diverges, and the under bridge of the A4080 again looks far wider and has unused track corridors under it. You then run into Wembley which I know was four track.

13) After the new train depot, it looks wide enough for four tracks (1-2 of which used as sidings now), but has “Great Central Way” road running alongside (road over former trackbed ?)
14) Joins the Aylesbury Line, with the Met/Jubilee lines to the North. From here I can really only see twin track, not least due to the old (brick, Victorian) buildings forming warhousing/railway buildings and so on acting as flanks. Unless previously there was more line sharing with the Met lines ?

15) A bit further on, all the lines cross Park Avenue, which has a 2-4 track width set of bridges to the North (of all the 6 Chiltern/Met/Jubilee lines) which are now isolated, with newish buildings on either side – implying at one point this railway corridor could have been 8-10 tracks wide in total? Immediately after is Willesden Green station which Chiltern miss by diving down the side of – there is no indication these lines could have ever had platforms.

16) At Kilburn, the Chiltern lines again dive south, crossing the roads on their own bridges. Again, unless the Met/Jubilee lines were used, there seems no scope for a quad track route.

17) At Finchley Road, the 2 Chiltern lines move south, and into the tunnel(s) that ultimately lead to Marylebone. I always see the unused (double?) portal on the south side of the line as you enter, but when you pop out to cross the NLL there is no corresponding tunnel portal there. I understand from other posts this tunnel was never finished/used?

18) At the south (Marylebone) end of the tunnel, Google maps shows twin tracks in it (which is what you see when passing through) but with points, a connection to the Met/Jubilee lines, and a third & 4th track heading for Marylebone. So was/is it a twin tunnel, opening out again to quad track for the station ?

19) The station entrance has a number of unused bridges, and I know the former large goods yard to the West resulted in numerous extra lines (now built over by the council estate and the large Bank building (both of which would seem to preclude further re-expansion of Maylebone). Including some new flats now sitting between the Met/Jubilee lines which presumably was the milk bottling plant.

20) A 1946 signalling map of Marylebone below shows up and slow down and fasts, implying 4 routes heading out through tunnels under Lords? There are still some old rails running parallel (on the West side) to the existing tracks into the tunnel, I assumed these were part of the goods yard, or headshunts, and although it gets dark at the tunnel entrance and so difficult to see, there doesn’t appear any relic of a parallel tunnel these could have gone into ?


So, did the quadtracking just run in station areas or how extensive was it?, and when did the changes to the current layout take place? (60s/70s post GCR closure or in the BR total route modernisation in the 80s?).


From the join with the Aylesbury line, I wonder if the modern 2 Met + 2 Jubilee hides an original 4 GCR, 2 Met arrangement, or something in between ? (i.e. 2 GCR, 2 joint, 2 Met ?).


If Chiltern were to reattempt quad tracking from Ruislip to Marylebone, it seems reasonably feasible, apart from the gaps I’ve identified – but then it doesn’t seem clear the original GCR route was fully quad tracked the entire route – and, for a suburban metro + regional/express service set up, would that be necessary ?

 

[John Webb]

There is a diagram of Marylebone station at http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=414 and also diagrams of Neasden North and South Junction signal boxes on the same website.

This book may also be of interest: https://www.middletonpress.co.uk/books/railways/western-main-lines/paddington-to-princes-risborough.html which apparently includes trains to Marylebone.

Hope this helps.

 

[Metrailway]

The line was built primarily 2 track throughout.

Marylebone station itself was intended to be a 10 platform station. Due to construction costs of the London Extension, Marylebone was cut back to 4 platforms and the space was safeguarded for possible extensions of the station. The land was later sold off and now the global HQ of BNP Paribas occupies this space.

Lord's Tunnel - the first tunnel north of Marylebone was able to take 7 tracks but the next two tunnels, St John's Wood Tunnel and Hampstead Tunnel were only built for 2 tracks. The space in Lord's Tunnel was utilised as sidings until IIRC the 80s. Currently only one bore of the Lord's Tunnel is used with the other two bores bricked up. There has never been a physical connection to the Met south of Lord's Tunnel. The Met emerges from tunnel to run parallel to the ex-GCML as it crosses the Regents Canal.

At Canfield Place (Finchley Road) there is an additional bore which is bricked up although this bore only runs for a few yards. This bore has never been used. North of Canfield Place, the GCR line to Harrow was and is only two track. The new buildings by Willesden Green are on the site of the old Metropolitan Goods Yard which closed in 1966.

At Neasden South Jn and the current Wembley Stadium station the line was four tracked with several goods lines/sidings. The bridge which carries the A4089 had four tracks running under it although immediately west of it the line became two track to cross the WCML.

As with nearly all stations on the "alternate route", Sudbury & Harrow Rd and Sudbury Hill Harrow had fast lines with slow platform loops. The current station at Sudbury & Harrow Rd was built in the 80s/90s over the fast line alignment. The platforms at Sudbury Hill Harrow I believe are built on the former slow lines. Both stations had good yards which are now occupied by housing. Northolt Park has always been two track although much of the land beside the railway was left undeveloped until recently. To my knowledge this land was never owned or used by the railway.

West Ruislip to Northolt Jn was four track throughout. There also used to be a GW/GC station at Ruislip Gardens. Beyond West Ruislip the line became two track.

Since the line was built as a two track line it will be very expensive to four track it completely to Marylebone. You have to demolish hundreds of very expensive properties between Neasden and Marylebone. You also have to build a new bridge over the WCML, rebuild several stations and several other bridges. The only sections where four tracking can be done relatively easily would be West Ruislip - Northolt Jn and reinstating the fast loops at the Sudbury stations.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Is this a good place to mention the old Wembley Stadium loop since it affected the through lines via a flat junction?

 

[HSTEd]

If the New North Main Line is not completely obliterated by HS2 construction, is there any real need for four tracking on the London sections of the chiltern main line as you could just use the platform space at Paddington freed by Crossrail to run additional services?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Depends how much space is freed up at Paddington and what they plan to do with that space once it is freed up.

The lines between Wycombe and Marylebone could use four tracking, but it would be so expensive to do it between Neasden and Marylebone for reasons already listed in this thread that it is never going to happen. I'd call the lines saturated now and fast services really have to rely on the stopping services being bang on time to avoid being held up. Stopping patterns are somewhat creative and passengers living at intermediate stations between Wembley and Haddenham (with the exception of High Wycombe) not having the greatest service to Banbury, Birmingham and the north because everything other than the Stratford services is geared to flow to London and back to the home counties or to London and back to the West Midlands, there isnt much overlap. Ticket data probably shows that London & back is what the overwhelming majority of people are using the railway for, but there is definitely a vocal minority of people who would disagree.

It's a classic case of a company doing well and becoming a victim of their own success. Again, some people who live at the south end of the line feel they are being pushed out for the benefit of the new passengers who are coming in from Bicester, Banbury and stations to Birmingham. I'm not qualified to say whether that is true or not, but it seems to me that other tried and tested solutions need to be applied here. Longer trains would be nice, I think that is being addressed somewhat with the move towards loco hauled stock on the Birmingham's, but I suspect that the 168s will all be used on Oxford fasts once the Oxford branch opens which still doesnt really help people who use stations south of High Wycombe.

Getting rid of 165s and replacing them with 172s would be a good move as having 75mph trains run around on a 100mph line is not ideal, and trains which can beat the 168s on acceleration and match them for top speed would help immensely. That's just a matter of money though, and I guess if there is going to be a serious push to get the line electrified then you dont want to replace DMU's with DMU's now only to find yourself needing EMU's in five years (or whenever). It all just highlights how difficult running a railway is because you genuinely can not keep everybody happy.

 

[corfield]

Thank you for the detailed reply on the quad tracking. I had come to the conclusion much of that area must have been, but the WCML bridge looked original and from Neasden in I agree it would be horrendously expensive to try and implement that now. Although to be honest, if all trains are on "Marylebone only" from there, would that actually be a constraint ?

I find it interesting that at the "Park Avenue" crossing between Neasden & Kilburn, there are redundant spans to the north, implying a 8-10 track corridor at one point (and infill modernish housing either side). In GCR days, was there a less obvious split between Met & GCR lines, such that the GCR could run up to Finchley road on some of the Met ones ? Also, why so many tracks/bores in the Lord's tunnel, and so few in the others - a literal running our of money ?, plus not even appearing to have aquired additional land/safeguarding to Neasden (unless they planned on using more lines on the Met side of things).


As a High Wycombe end user, I've found the service much better in recent years, with a reversal of what felt like 75% stoppers, to 75% fasts. I assume that has reduced connectivity between stations and at the London end - but from observation, the vast majority of passengers are going to London (with the exception of match days at Wembley) anyway - so presumably Chiltern have done this off the back of traffic analysis ?

Timings are somewhat odd, in that you can never estimate a train time (and they take from 40 odd mins to 20 odd !) - but the Chiltern app with live train info is awesome, and allows planning to pick up a fast as well. Punctuality and reliability has, in 3 years, never been less than outstanding in my experience.

Personally I think the way ahead will have to be some big investment with electrification, combining several things in one big/long hit:
1) West Hampstead Interchange. I can't emphasis how useful this would be. Marylebone doesn't have good interconnections, and to North Central / North East London it is appalling - basically walk to Baker St, tube to Euston/KX and then head out again. Yet on the way in, you pass right by the NLL and TL. It would, by releasing some passengers early, also solve any future capacity issues at Marylebone itself.
2) Quadtracking and station loops where possible, to give the Metro style service without impacting on the semi-fasts and fasts.
3) Take over the Joint Amersham to Harrow-on-the-Hill lines and all services, with upgrading of speed to more NR like numbers. If electrification occurs, then since the new Met stock is single voltage, then something has to happen here and I see no logic in a small AC / 4th rail dual voltage Chiltern EMU type. Accept it's far out, hand it to a rail operator. I don't use this line much, but friends who do give the consistent opinion is that the joint nature is nice in offering frequency and a through service, but clearly results in a very slow journey. The WH Interchange (& an earlier stop at Wembley Park say) would then allow passengers wanting the through Met service, local services or Jubilee connection to pick those up, and with a faster inbound service, probably still gaining time.

Sending some services to Paddington would be good in that it connects with Crossrail, but would leave you with a very uncertain London destination (Marylebone or Paddington) from any given train and presumably decrease the frequency from either by splitting that. Given the GW Greenford Branch service is being curtailed at West Ealing to avoid impacting on Crossrail /GW paths - I assume there won't be capacity to take on a bunch of Chiltern services, even if Paddington station had the space.

 

[kjhskj75]

Sending some services to Paddington would be good in that it connects with Crossrail, but would leave you with a very uncertain London destination (Marylebone or Paddington) from any given train and presumably decrease the frequency from either by splitting that. Given the GW Greenford Branch service is being curtailed at West Ealing to avoid impacting on Crossrail /GW paths - I assume there won't be capacity to take on a bunch of Chiltern services, even if Paddington station had the space.

Though since half the Crossrail services will turn back at Paddington, I would have thought there would be some scope for continuing some instead towards High Wycombe. Need a bit of platform lengthening though.

 

[Metrailway]

The redundant spans on the bridge over Park Avenue at Willesden were for the lines to the Goods Yard.

The reason why Lord's Tunnel was built for seven tracks as it was a case of future proofing by the GCR. The tunnel goes under Lord's Cricket Ground and when built the ground had to be dug up and this caused huge controvesy in the 1890s. To prevent subsequent digging of the Cricket Ground, space was provided for seven tracks.

The London Extension was completed in 1899 but the only GCR lines in London/Middlesex was the Canfield Place to Marylebone line. North of Canfield Place (to Quainton Road) the GCR used Metropolitan tracks (then only two tracks). After negotiations with the Met, the Met built two additional tracks for GCR use only in 1903 between Canfield Place and Harrow making the rail corridor 4 tracks wide. The Met would later add an additional pair to Harrow (by 1915) for its use to make the rail corridor six tracks wide, it's current width. The Alternate route from Neasden via High Wycombe was built in 1906.

 

[swt_passenger]

If the New North Main Line is not completely obliterated by HS2 construction, is there any real need for four tracking on the London sections of the chiltern main line as you could just use the platform space at Paddington freed by Crossrail to run additional services?

The route down towards Paddington is intended to be 'obliterated', as far as the route technical description published by HS2 is concerned.

There are dribbles of information coming out that the Paddington higher numbered platforms (eg 12 and 13) will be remodelled to provide an additional full length platform for intercity trains. I would expect that any platform capacity becoming available at Paddington following Crossrail will be used up by the expanding IEP services, as described in the GW RUS. Also that eventually P14 will be the only short platform available to mainline services.

 

[MichaelAMW]

The line was built primarily 2 track throughout.

Marylebone station itself was intended to be a 10 platform station. Due to construction costs of the London Extension, Marylebone was cut back to 4 platforms and the space was safeguarded for possible extensions of the station. The land was later sold off and now the global HQ of BNP Paribas occupies this space.

Lord's Tunnel - the first tunnel north of Marylebone was able to take 7 tracks but the next two tunnels, St John's Wood Tunnel and Hampstead Tunnel were only built for 2 tracks. The space in Lord's Tunnel was utilised as sidings until IIRC the 80s. Currently only one bore of the Lord's Tunnel is used with the other two bores bricked up. There has never been a physical connection to the Met south of Lord's Tunnel. The Met emerges from tunnel to run parallel to the ex-GCML as it crosses the Regents Canal.

At Canfield Place (Finchley Road) there is an additional bore which is bricked up although this bore only runs for a few yards. This bore has never been used. North of Canfield Place, the GCR line to Harrow was and is only two track. The new buildings by Willesden Green are on the site of the old Metropolitan Goods Yard which closed in 1966.

At Neasden South Jn and the current Wembley Stadium station the line was four tracked with several goods lines/sidings. The bridge which carries the A4089 had four tracks running under it although immediately west of it the line became two track to cross the WCML.

As with nearly all stations on the "alternate route", Sudbury & Harrow Rd and Sudbury Hill Harrow had fast lines with slow platform loops. The current station at Sudbury & Harrow Rd was built in the 80s/90s over the fast line alignment. The platforms at Sudbury Hill Harrow I believe are built on the former slow lines. Both stations had good yards which are now occupied by housing. Northolt Park has always been two track although much of the land beside the railway was left undeveloped until recently. To my knowledge this land was never owned or used by the railway.

West Ruislip to Northolt Jn was four track throughout. There also used to be a GW/GC station at Ruislip Gardens. Beyond West Ruislip the line became two track.

Since the line was built as a two track line it will be very expensive to four track it completely to Marylebone. You have to demolish hundreds of very expensive properties between Neasden and Marylebone. You also have to build a new bridge over the WCML, rebuild several stations and several other bridges. The only sections where four tracking can be done relatively easily would be West Ruislip - Northolt Jn and reinstating the fast loops at the Sudbury stations.

Just to add a couple of things...

-- The line was four-tracked from Neasden South Junction to Blind Line, which is the Wycombe side of Wembley Park/Complex/Stadium and just before the line crosses the WCML. (I suspect MetRailway knows that but not sure it's exactly what he wrote)

-- The through roads at Sudbury & Harrow Road went a long time ago and were slewed nicely through the platforms. These were wooden and when they started sliding down the embankment the present centre platform was built, without moving the tracks. Sudbury Hill lost its through lines around 1980 (nice co-acting UQ starter on the up through), leaving several years of 15mph through the platform alignment until the present arrangement was done in about 1989.

-- The four tracks through Denham station was extended a bit towards Denham Junction.

-- From High Wycombe southwards to Northolt Junction there was a fair bit of provision for a four-track railway, which is most obviously seen in the position of the fencing along much of the route, i.e. it's a fair way from the tracks, and the fact that (almost?) every overbridge is four tracks wide. I think that is also true for the Northolt - Neasden part but it's not quite so apparent - and I can't remember as well! Obvious omission is the only double track of the two tunnels. (The under bridges aren't four tracks.)

 

[cle]

I think a first step would be to have a 4 platform station at Wembley Stadium, which would allow more overtaking. Then 2 tracks down to Marylebone isn't a problem really.

Quadding along towards South Ruislip would be another step, and you could actually fit in some local stoppers and probably increase outer suburban/semi-fast trains which I think are the ones being complained about (people from Denham to Risborough) - who are missing their faster services. Some more station quadding would help too, Denham for example - and finishing Princes Risborough.

Taking over the Met line to Amersham and Chesham is a no-brainer too, once Croxley opens. Journey times are shocking on that route. Not sure about Wembley Park NR platforms - if the above happened, then possibly more useful as an interchange.

West Hampstead would be better, but so hard to do. The Jubilee island is very wide though! If you forewent the Met lines at the interchange and just had a Chiltern platform, that'd be a good compromise.

 

[mr_jrt]

I have a bit of a proposal for the area actually.

In brief, first up - Crossrail branch from OOC to High Wycombe. Second - Jubilee branch from Neasden (with Met interchange moved south 1 stop as well) along the Chiltern route, utilising as much of the four-track alignment as possible, then either terminating at West Ruislip (or Uxbridge!), or diving back down into tunnel and heading towards the Greenford branch.

This just leaves Marylebone to handle the Aylesbury via Amersham services and the mainline services. I have other ideas for the via Amershams, but that'll do for now.

 

[corfield]

Thanks for all the info on this, it's definitely helped clarify what was there.

I can see that the overbridges are only twin track (often a bit wider near stations, I assume due to goodsyard slips / loops), I hadn't noticed the underbridges along that section were quad width (true also for the HQ viaducts?), but will definitely have a look as I regularly run/walk/cycle the HW to GX portions.


I don't think you'd need to quad from Neasden to Marylebone (as everything should be just heading in from there), but quad/platform looping out to Ruislip to permit express (Birm), outer (HW/PR) and metro services to run without interference must be the way ahead ? although happy to admit I have no railway or analytical expertise to think that other than a guesstimate !

Has there ever been a serious proposal to hand over the Amersham-Harrow On The Hill Met service to Chiltern ? How might TfL view this (or how do they), and would it actually enable any speed rises or is the track corridor fundamentally forcing the curves/speed limits ?

 

[aylesbury]

Back in the seventies a proposal for the Met to be extended to Aylesbury surfaced but it was turned down on cost and the fact that people along the line from Great Missenden didnt want the electrics.If it had happened things would have been like it was pe 1960.Now we would like to see electrification and new trains.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I think a first step would be to have a 4 platform station at Wembley Stadium, which would allow more overtaking. Then 2 tracks down to Marylebone isn't a problem really.

It depends on what you meet at Neasden, there is still a Met service running all the time.

Extra platforms at Wembley would be good, especially as it would allow trains to terminate in the platforms and stay there on Wembley event days. You could have an up through line and a south facing bay on the down too I guess, that might be cheaper and down trains have two chances to overtake at the Ruislips not much further along the line, although they still catch stoppers up sometimes.
Cant see it happening any time soon though, if you know the station then you will be aware that there is a particularly magnificent and hugely expensive bridge connecting the two platforms (it even has its own Wikipedia page!) and I think adding a lift and staircase to any new platforms from that might be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Clip]

They dont even have to put platforms there - just 4 track it. With maybe more passing loops at Beaconsfield too.

They could then fix up the spare platform at Denham and run the metro style service they wanted to from Denham using the extra loop at WRU to let things pass on the up..

 

[Cherry_Picker]

There isnt a spare platform at Denham. The old down platform is still there in sorts, it has been reduced dramatically in size but you can still clearly see it from the new up platform. The down line hasnt moved at all, the new platform has just been placed on the other side as an island. It's a narrow island though because there is still room for an up through line if needed. Terminating trains at Denham is fairly pointless too, its two and half miles from West Ruislip and two and a half miles from Gerrards Cross, the places where the "metro style" services currently terminate.

As for the platforms at Wembley? They arent needed, but it would be nice to have them for event days. The station gets very busy when 90000 people are pouring out of the nearby stadium and a complicated filter system has to take place with passengers to stop them overcrowding a platform which trains are generally unable to wait on. If you could have a train in situ waiting for passengers in a south facing bay or on a slow platform it would be very handy. I cant see it happening, but it would be very handy.

 

[Clip]

The old platform is still there yes but when they built the new platform they have left enough space further down to use as a bay IIRC. this says its looking westbound but may attachment shows where I mean on the down. The platform is in red and is visibly thinner at the London enad - the yellow box is for the bay idea.Im pretty sure thats why they built it to move the GX terminators there in the future so it would free up a bit of pathing space instead of the GX ones crossing the down into the siding..

Mind it was a while ago I got told this so maybe you should ask about within Chiltern...

 

[RPM]

I'm certainly not aware of any intention to put a bay platform in at Denham. What you are looking at is the change from the standard width platform to the wider section that accommodates the shelter and footbridge. Beyond that it reverts to the narrower width again. As Cherry Picker said, the space behind the new platform is earmarked for a future up or biderectional fast line. This was to have been built as part of Evergreen 3 but it was cut out when they were trying to slim the project down to something affordable.

However provision has been made for future bay platforms at both Gerrards Cross and Bicester North.

 

[CarltonA]

There was a laughable suggestion on Wikipedia that provision had been made on the new island at Denham for a bay to serve a reopening of the Uxbridge High St branch. If said branch was to ever reopen it would be better to head in the Ruislip direction IMO.

 

[Clip]

I'm certainly not aware of any intention to put a bay platform in at Denham. What you are looking at is the change from the standard width platform to the wider section that accommodates the shelter and footbridge. Beyond that it reverts to the narrower width again. As Cherry Picker said, the space behind the new platform is earmarked for a future up or biderectional fast line. This was to have been built as part of Evergreen 3 but it was cut out when they were trying to slim the project down to something affordable.

However provision has been made for future bay platforms at both Gerrards Cross and Bicester North.

Fair enough. Like I say it was just what I was told when they were building it. By the people who planned it..